MUMBAI: Bombay HC allowed medical termination of over 29-week pregnancy of a 14-year-old rape survivor despite JJ Hospital medical board giving an opinion against it. “Desire and safety of the survivor is of utmost importance than any other consideration,” said Justices Sarang Kotwal and Neela Gokhale in Thursday’s order.
The minor’s mother moved HC for permission as the pregnancy had crossed the permissible 24-week limit.The parents are dailywage labourers. On Sept 30, the daughter complained of stomach pain. She revealed she was sexually assaulted in July by a known person. It was repeated subsequently. On Oct 1, an FIR was lodged under BNS and Pocso Act. She was over 27 weeks pregnant.
The Oct 9 report of the seven-doctor board found her “29.1 weeks of gestational age with no congenital anomalies in the fetus”. It stated that if she undergoes termination of pregnancy now, it will have the same risk and complications for her as if the pregnancy is continued to term. Also, she is physically and mentally fit to continue the pregnancy.
The mother’s advocate, Ashley Cusher, said completion of pregnancy is still at least 8-9 weeks away. Considering the survivor’s tender age, there is always a serious and grave risk to her life. State’s advocate, M P Thakur, expressed concern for the child who may be born alive. The judges also considered that aspect. They spoke to the mother and daughter, who “categorically and emphatically stated that they wished to terminate the pregnancy.”
They referred to a “particularly relevant” provision of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act that, while determining whether continuance of pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the health of a pregnant woman, account may be taken of her actual or reasonably foreseeable environment. They noted that the survivor is of a tender age. She discovered her condition at a late stage. She is poor and is not in a position to raise the child. “Her actual environment also supports her desire for termination of pregnancy,” they added.
The judges said what weighed on their minds was ” safety of the survivor as the most important deciding factor”. The judges directed the state to take steps to care for the child if born alive and, if necessary, give it in adoption.
